2 ms·
Sure, I was going to mention the tradeoff with the inefficiency but left it out for brevity. I will say, though, that the same inefficiency in those geographic
by bumby 5y ago
Sure, I was going to mention the tradeoff with the inefficiency but left it out for brevity.
I will say, though, that the same inefficiency in those geographic areas exist when building multistoried buildings. A ranch is much easier to cool in west texas/new mexico/arizona than a multistory building where the bedrooms and living areas need to be cooled.
I've notice the construction style also mitigates this somewhat. In the west where slab-on-grade is the norm, ducts run through the attic, meaning diffusers are in the ceiling. This makes natural convection of cold air more efficient, especially when coupled with something cheap like a ceiling fan. But at the end of the day, you're right that there's still substantially more air to condition.
I don't know if I'd say that was even a proximate cause of the texas power grid situation though which was largely due to weatherization issues. Can you elaborate?
- giantg2 5y agoThere are a lot of articles that go through the issues in detail. The main points they list are that in that climate heating is less of a concern and so inefficient resistant heating is common. Then the grid itself didn't winterize, which lead to some plants not staying up and the others not being able to cover the spike in demand with a reduction in generation capacity.
- bumby 5y agoThat's kinda what I'm getting at. The root cause of the failure was not winterizing the plants and infrastructure, not really about residential construction design. The resistance heating failed due to the grid design, not the other way around. Having more electrical demand would have not been much of an issue, I presume, had the grid been more resilient. Conversely, less resistance heating would not have magically made the grid more resilient.